Deck Archive

[icybraker]

Adding on to Kuro's point, I think we do need some sort of regular template for decks, just like we have for the cards. Title - Image - usage notes - statistics (if any) - Kuro's chart may suffice.

Hm... sounds good SG, except are they really going to be called "Decks by Type" and "Decks by Purpose"? They can simply be "Decks" and "Deck Archive".

[Zac33333]

I do like that kind of nested navigation, but in terms of web usability, it has some problems because You need to go through 3-4 pages before getting to the information you are looking for. (Answer 1 below) Most popular information should always be just a 2 clicks away.
"Tested decks" is also a term I'm a bit worried about. What is a "tested deck"? When does and "untested deck" become a "tested" one? I don't know how we could define it in a simple way. (Answer 2 below)

Answer 1:

Well, I like to think about it like a survey.

You go through with the answers, or in this case threads, that you like

And in the end it pays off with a nice deck that is custom to your playing strategy and level. This would make it go nicely with adding that chart to the deck's description in that thread.

Answer 2:
When I used "Tested", I meant it as an example, not how I wanted it to be. But in the case that I did want that, Tested decks would be the base decks. Your original FG rainbow, for example. Then the "UnTested" would be deck variations of the originals and the classics. The unupped versions, the ones with an added strategy, ect.

Thanks for the compliment

[Scaredgirl]

Adding on to Kuro's point, I think we do need some sort of regular template for decks, just like we have for the cards. Title - Image - usage notes - statistics (if any) - Kuro's chart may suffice.

Hm... sounds good SG, except are they really going to be called "Decks by Type" and "Decks by Purpose"? They can simply be "Decks" and "Deck Archive".

Those parts are "invisible".

What we have now:
- Deck help
- Mono
- Duo/Trio
- Rainbow
- Anti-FG

What I suggested:
- Deck help
- Mono
- Duo/Trio
- Rainbow
- Deck Archive

Answer 1:

Well, I like to think about it like a survey.

You go through with the answers, or in this case threads, that you like

And in the end it pays off with a nice deck that is custom to your playing strategy and level. This would make it go nicely with adding that chart to the deck's description in that thread.

Answer 2:
When I used "Tested", I meant it as an example, not how I wanted it to be. But in the case that I did want that, Tested decks would be the base decks. Your original FG rainbow, for example. Then the "UnTested" would be deck variations of the originals and the classics. The unupped versions, the ones with an added strategy, ect.

1. Well that works but it can also be time consuming if you have multiple levels of hierarchy and you have to click & load 4 times to see if there are any new DG decks available. Popular data shouldn't be too "deep".

2. Yes, but my point was that how do you define what deck is tested and what is not? You mentioned my original FG deck as an example of a tested deck. I wouldn't call that tested. Sure it worked 9 months ago but it's pretty much crap now after all the changes and nerfs in the game.

I think a better way would be to simply have a voting system of sorts where the community decides what the good decks are, just like with Card Ideas. We could maybe have a simple star rating system or something.

[Zac33333]

Answer 1:

Well, I like to think about it like a survey.

You go through with the answers, or in this case threads, that you like

And in the end it pays off with a nice deck that is custom to your playing strategy and level. This would make it go nicely with adding that chart to the deck's description in that thread.

Answer 2:
When I used "Tested", I meant it as an example, not how I wanted it to be. But in the case that I did want that, Tested decks would be the base decks. Your original FG rainbow, for example. Then the "UnTested" would be deck variations of the originals and the classics. The unupped versions, the ones with an added strategy, ect.

1. Well that works but it can also be time consuming if you have multiple levels of hierarchy and you have to click & load 4 times to see if there are any new DG decks available. Popular data shouldn't be too "deep".

2. Yes, but my point was that how do you define what deck is tested and what is not? You mentioned my original FG deck as an example of a tested deck. I wouldn't call that tested. Sure it worked 9 months ago but it's pretty much crap now after all the changes and nerfs in the game.

I think a better way would be to simply have a voting system of sorts where the community decides what the good decks are, just like with Card Ideas. We could maybe have a simple star rating system or something.

Meh it sounds good to me. Im not really involved in this, just throwing around ideas.

And you make me feel old when you say: "Sure it worked 9 months ago but it's pretty much crap now after all the changes and nerfs in the game."

Because I have been playing since 1.12, so that means I was around before this "Old" FG deck 

[Kuroaitou]

Here's what I'm talking about in that first post:

Deck section is divided into 2 parts:

1. Decks by type
2. Decks by purpose

Part 1 would be the sections we have now (apart from "Anti-FG"):
- Mono
- Duo/Trio
- Rainbow

Part 2 would be one forum section titled "Deck Archive", with a bunch of threads titled "AI3", "Top-50", "False Gods", etc. This section would be read-only.

All deck ideas would be posted in part 1. They would later be copied to part 2 by Deck Helpers. Process would be almost identical to what we use with Card Ideas.

Hey that table idea is pretty cool. We could even use the icons to make it look more epic:

For the above part - this implies that the deck would then be given comments on how it works in certain levels of play (AI3, false gods, random upgraded pvp, etc.), right? If you simplify the general consensus on how it works using the table (the icon idea is perfect if you could use as a gold star rating  ), then the deck helpers could post up the Card deck image, the table, and user notes that the author wanted to add afterward, and THAT would be a completed template as Icy suggested above. ^^

Hooray for tables!

Also supporting the:

- Deck help
- Mono
- Duo/Trio
- Rainbow
- Deck Archive

format.

[PuppyChow]

Another option (I haven't thought much about it, so it could be a terrible idea >_>) would be to just make lots of different categories.

Fun
False God
AI 3
AI 5
PvP
Effective
New

And of course maybe more. Decks would be allowed to be under more than one category. I'm not sure if this is possible, but that would work even better if there was a way we could specify in each topic which categories it's listed under (other than the OP editing it in).

Otherwise, I like the idea of doing what you were suggesting with making the deck archive "AI 3", "T50", "False Gods"... etc. with that table thingy. But with the table we run into problems when you have a deck that's mainly for False Gods, but is really just a fun way to farm them and isn't all that effective (like yala's heavy quartet deck). The table would have something like two or three stars for false gods, and probably more for half-bloods and PvP. Yet it's still a deck for False Gods. Maybe along with the table, the AI 3/T50/False God/Etc. sections could be further broken down into "Fun", "Effective", "New", etc.

[bojengles77]

If we do in fact end up on a ranking system, where we go by
 
 
 
 
 
 

and we qualify these rankings for each decks in several categories (ie pvp, FG, t50), who would be responsible for ranking them. Would they go through the card-creating system, where there is a forge, armory, etc? I like that kind of idea, where there could be 5 different levels

1: cool name
2: cool name
3: cooler name
4: very cool name
5: coolest name

and the decks move up through these and get their "rankings" according to what tier they are in. This project could basically become infinitely complex with the number of categories and ranking systems we could make, it just all depends what makes the most sense for the work you'd have to put in to make it. I'm currently a fan of copying the armory-forge etc. ranking system and apply it to decks

[Belthus]

On a tangent... how about a topic rating that can be used for sorting? When I look at the deck forums, I have little clue as to a deck's quality besides recognizing the names of a few proven deck builders.

[Scaredgirl]

On a tangent... how about a topic rating that can be used for sorting? When I look at the deck forums, I have little clue as to a deck's quality besides recognizing the names of a few proven deck builders.

Yes, that's clearly the best way to do this. There is one person/company who is doing a plugin just like that but it's not ready yet. I will install it as soon as it's ready but I don't know when that is.

[Scaredgirl]

We have to start this project as soon as possible. I'm still not sure what the best way is, but it's too late now so we'll just start the project and make changes as we go along.

If someone has any ideas, now is the last chance to speak before we start doing this.

[Zac33333]

All I have to say is..


This project is going to be
HELL

So good luck!

[BluePriest]

I posted something similar to this on another topic. http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,8049.0.html  This is basically what I said


Main Idea
-Anti FG decks that are no longer "good" with the new update, would be moved to an anti FG deck archive
-To stop them from being moved, they would have to be "credited" by one or more person to still be effective.
-Once moved to the archive, they could still be commented, and if the deck was updated by the OP, then they could be moved back.
-If The OP doesnt update the main page anymore, then a once a deck is moved to the archive, a new topic by a different person could be made, that way if there is someone that likes the deck, he can keep it alive.
Statistics
-The statistics page should be stickied

Crucible System
-Decks could have levels like the card idea system
-Level 0:Basic Idea The deck is an anti FG deck All would be initially posted here.
Lvl 0 Would be split into several threads. Mono, Duo, Trio, Entropybow, TimeBow. People could post their deck in the corresponding section.
-Level 1:Deck has statistics. At least 50 games.
-Level 2:Deck has at least 100 game statistics, and has received reviews/criticism and updates
-Level 3:OP constantl updates the deck Over 250 statistics for the current version

Thats all just rough ideas.